What?

The logic is, that if you provide a service to consumers (as much as I hate that term), you are required to provide a minimum level of service. Financially discounting that service (even a 100% discount) doesn't change that situation. It's done to prevent abuse of the little guy. If there was an exception for free services, businesses would use all sorts of means to exploit that loophole (e.g. in a broadband + TV package, we say you're paying for the TV only, the broadband is a 'free extra' so you get a shitty broadband service with no customer support, you can't complain as it's 'free', and by the way we're the only provider in your area... see the potential problem?). I would also take issue with your definition of free - by using Google services you're providing to Google a payment in kind by displaying their adverts on your computer screen and viewing them. If it makes you happier, imagine that Google pays Germans 0.01 Euro for each advert imprint, and then demands that in payment for the internet service provided.

"But does the law require the use of any specific technological method?" Yes. UK law, which is based on EU law, states "The email address of the service provider must be given. It is not sufficient to include a 'contact us' form without also providing an email address."

You doubt wrongly. The GP poster even provided a link. "The email address of the service provider must be given. It is not sufficient to include a 'contact us' form without also providing an email address."

Yes... the problem is that they don't reply - or at least don't think they have an obligation to do so.

Agreed. You could reframe the debate this way: Google has many millions of paying customers, who make payment _in kind_ by reading and displaying (on their computer screen) adverts that Google provides. You can't sidestep consumer protection law by providing a service at a financial discount, even if that discount is 100%.

So... Manhattan, then?

PRIOR TO THE iPHONE'S RELEASE!! Man, there's some major reading fails here. Apple was first to market with a wildly popular truly smart smartphone, way before there was any sort of industry standard for anything.

On the micro-gig sites, remember that you'll be competing with people who can live quite comfortably on $5/day. If you can live on that, more power to you. Otherwise, you'll want to find other ways to peddle your services.

There has been somewhat hackish support available for a while to use it on Android. Having official support will be nice. Now I just have to write my killer app and live the lifestyle of the idle rich.

Or as we in KAOS like to put it:

STARKER! ZIS IS DE INTERNET! VE DON'T COUNTRY ON DE INTERNET!!

Not sure about this. While numerous national laws apply to overseas citizens (e.g. child abuse laws in Canada, Aus and the US), French citizenship is a little different. You cannot renounce French citizenship; it's simply not possible. So secrecy laws and various others which can and sometimes do conflict with human rights might be harder to enforce in a court of law.

But hey, the Napoleonic code on which French law is based differs significantly from Common Law, with which I'm more familiar, so I'm nearly certain to be upholding the time-honoured Slashdot tradition of talking through my hat. :-)

Well, the way you describe it, there's just no defense against that. But consider the following:

Many companies and individuals legitimately use tax havens as a way of keeping money offshore until they need it. The moment it enters their domestic bank account, of course, it can become capital gains/earnings and therefore subject to tax. But because they do a lot of business overseas, they leave a chunk parked in order to avoid unnecessary fees. So they use this as a floating pot they can dip into to conduct business at lower cost, and then pay the taxes whenever they repatriate some part of it.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, which is what you describe.

The problem is that regulatory oversight is slack-to-nonexistent, and that the entire system (like so many other parts of the financial sector) has been gamed so badly that the entire thing is widely (and justifiably) viewed as a sham.

Ironically, 9/11 put an end to some of the worst abuses. The US got so worried about stopping terrorist financing operations that they created a very strict new set of rules, and enforced them by disallowing anyone on their black list from trading in US currency. Smartened up a number of countries in a hurry.

So yeah, those rich schmucks are still hiding their money, but at least it's (slightly) harder for them to buy drugs and guns.... *sigh*

Somebody may not have thought their clever little plan through as completely as they might have liked. The police have guns. And a lot of friends with guns. And a solid organized network for both communicating among themselves and with other departments, through multiple channels. I don't see this ending in a big payday.

Heh, that just lens itself to humour, doesn't it.

Sorry I'll f-stop. I know what'll happen if iris one more pun. I shutter at the thought.